Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Specify WebTransport initialization in more detail #217

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Mar 16, 2021

Conversation

yutakahirano
Copy link
Contributor

@yutakahirano yutakahirano commented Mar 5, 2021

This is for #128.


Preview | Diff

@yutakahirano
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aboba @jan-ivar PTAL.

cc: @annevk

index.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.bs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.bs Show resolved Hide resolved
Yutaka Hirano added 2 commits March 8, 2021 16:01
Copy link
Member

@annevk annevk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good overall!

index.bs Show resolved Hide resolved
index.bs Show resolved Hide resolved
@aboba
Copy link
Collaborator

aboba commented Mar 16, 2021

Question: How does allowPooling interact with server indications of pooling support? Is this taken into account in the fetch algorithm? For example, if the server indicates it does not support pooling, will connections to that endpoint not be pooled? With respect to the WebTransport constructor, my assumption is that there is no interaction between allowPooling and server indications (e.g. allowPooling is a preference which can be accommodated or not, based on user agent and server capabilities).

See slide 21 here for potential options for how the server indication could work.

Otherwise, LGTM.

@yutakahirano
Copy link
Contributor Author

Question: How does allowPooling interact with server indications of pooling support? Is this taken into account in the fetch algorithm? For example, if the server indicates it does not support pooling, will connections to that endpoint not be pooled? With respect to the WebTransport constructor, my assumption is that there is no interaction between allowPooling and server indications (e.g. allowPooling is a preference which can be accommodated or not, based on user agent and server capabilities).

That depends on the resolution of ietf-wg-webtrans/draft-ietf-webtrans-http3#34. When I was writing this I was imagining
negotiation with SETTINGS frame. I'm leaning to landing this now and update the logic after the resolution.

@aboba
Copy link
Collaborator

aboba commented Mar 16, 2021

That depends on the resolution of ietf-wg-webtrans/draft-ietf-webtrans-http3#34. When I was writing this I was imagining
negotiation with SETTINGS frame. I'm leaning to landing this now and update the logic after the resolution.

@yutakahirano Sounds good.

@yutakahirano yutakahirano merged commit 02a7570 into main Mar 16, 2021
@yutakahirano yutakahirano deleted the yhirano/connection branch March 16, 2021 07:33
github-actions bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 16, 2021
)

This is for #128.

 - Introduce WebTransportOptions.dedicated.
 - Initialize a connection with
   https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-connection-obtain.
 - (Bonus) Introduce WebTransport.Closed and reject it when the
   connection establishment fails.

SHA: 02a7570
Reason: push, by @yutakahirano

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants